Resolution protecting life from conception to natural death

[Pro Life-2017]

Look at this draft resolution, and tell me what you guys think:

Protecting Unborn Human Life from Conception to Natural Death

Preamble:

1. This resolution hereby condemns abortion in the strongest terms possible, because abortion kills an unborn children, which has been proven by science,
2. This resolution hereby protects unborn human life from conception to natural death, by banning all forms of abortion,

Therefore:

3. This resolution hereby defines human life to start from the moment of conception, based off well established and well proven science,
4. This resolution prohibits abortion in all cases,

[United Massachusetts]

Again, this contradicts several resolutions

[This City of Ours]

If you're gonna pick this hill to die on, at least do it without spamming up the site.

[NeoOasis]

I have to say this.

OOC: Username checks out.

IC: This seems to contradict many resolutions, also seems a bit general. Those this include farm animals... does this mean I can no longer eat scrambled eggs? For that matter does that mean all WA Members must now adopt a vegan lifestyle as all forms of killing are now banned?

Also this resolution specifically discriminates against non-humans.

Also what if the resolution passes on the 23rd instead of the 19th?

and... uhh...damn... I don't have time to list all the issues here.

Opposed on grounds of everything.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: Illegal for conflicts with multiple previous resolutions.

[Willania Imperium]

“No draft, no support. Also, probably illegal.”

[New Waldensia]

Look at this Resolution and please vote for it:

Here is the link: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1511144069 or here is the text:

This resolution shall be known as “A resolution protecting life from conception to natural death”

1. This resolution hereby protects life from conception to natural death,
2. This resolution hereby defines life to start from the moment of conception,
3. This resolution hereby prohibit abortion in all states that are members of the World Assembly,
4. This resolution prohibit abortion in all cases,
5. This resolution also bans euthanasia in all cases,
6. This resolution shall be binding on all states that the members of the World Assembly,
7. Every state shall give the life of the unborn child the same standing and rights as a Born human,
8. This resolution hereby condemns abortion in the strongest terms possible, this resolution hereby condemns euthanasia in the strongest terms possible,
9. This binding resolution shall be enforced by the Security Council,
10. Should this resolution passed, this day, the 19th of November 2017 shall be known as Life Day,
11. This resolution is respectfully submitted the 19th of November 2017

While I support every aspect of this, there are multiple GA Resolutions that would have to be repealed (such as 'On Abortion', 'Reproductive Freedoms', and probably 'Assisted Suicide Act') before this would be a legal proposal.

This link has some resources you should check out on writing GA proposals/repeals. Welcome to the General Assembly... where newcomers tend to get their heads bit off by snobbish "senior" members! (half-joking)

[The New California Republic]

4. This resolution prohibit abortion in all cases,
5. This resolution also bans euthanasia in all cases,

OOC: You give us no arguments, at all, as to why both abortion and euthanasia should be banned in all cases. It makes me suspicious of your motives. This proposal will never pass, ever. It would probably be better to give up on it. Even just the banning abortions in all cases is controversial, but you also add insult to injury by wanting to outlaw euthanasia as well.

10. Should this resolution passed, this day, the 19th of November 2017 shall be known as Life Day.

OOC: Is this supposed to be a Star Wars Holiday Special joke? If so, it really isn't funny. It just gives your proposal the appearance of a joke proposal.

This proposal has already been marked illegal, because it contradicts GAR#287. Then you shamelessly submit a 1 line repeal attempt of GAR#287 immediately after your proposal is ruled illegal, because it contradicts GAR#287: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1511154491

Completely shameless.

[Aclion]

I have to say this.

OOC: Username checks out.

IC: This seems to contradict many resolutions, also seems a bit general. Those this include farm animals... does this mean I can no longer eat scrambled eggs? For that matter does that mean all WA Members must now adopt a vegan lifestyle as all forms of killing are now banned?

Nah, plants are alive too. You can't win.

[Imperial Polk County]

“No draft, no support. Also, probably illegal.”

Drane snickers. "Probably? With respect, more like definitely, on multiple counts. It contradicts a few existing resolutions on abortion and euthanasia, and calls for the Security Council to enforce this, a function that the Security Council cannot perform."

[Ransium]

I have to say this.

OOC: Username checks out.

IC: This seems to contradict many resolutions, also seems a bit general. Those this include farm animals... does this mean I can no longer eat scrambled eggs? For that matter does that mean all WA Members must now adopt a vegan lifestyle as all forms of killing are now banned?

Nah, plants are alive too. You can't win.

Damn, right they are!

[Wallenburg]

You were specifically asked to draft this when your last two threads were locked. Since you chose not to anyway, I really don't see any reason to waste my time giving you a long explanation as to exactly how many resolutions this violates.

[Phydios]

You have no idea what you are doing. First, you need to get two pro-abortion resolutions repealed. Otherwise your resolution will be illegal for contradicting current WA law. Second, the Security Council has nothing to do with the General Assembly. They are two separate bodies. Third, you are trying to take on one of the most controversial issues in the GA, yet you clearly know next to nothing about writing proposals. It's not an activity for novices. I don't even do it, and I've been here for three years.

You know that box that you checked when you submitted this mess? The one about compliance with GA proposal standards? Go back and actually read that thread. Learn the basics about writing proposals. Then hang out for a while and just watch other people draft, submit, and vote on proposals. Draft your own proposals in the GA forum, and get plenty of input before you submit them. Team up with other people to help write your proposals or spell-check your work. Just do something besides submitting an extremely illegal proposal when you have no idea what you're doing. I look forward to seeing what you do. You have good intentions, but this proposal is unsalvageable.

[The New California Republic]

You have no idea what you are doing. First, you need to get two pro-abortion resolutions repealed.

OOC: Easier said than done. Many have tried, and failed, to get GAR#128 and GAR#286 repealed. The quality of the wording and arguments of those attempted repeals has ranged from mediocre to first class. And yet they all failed to repeal them. There just isn't enough support in the WA for an outright ban on abortion, and it seems unlikely that the broad attitude of the WA will change in the foreseeable future. As a result, GAR#128 and GAR#286 are two Resolutions that are stuck like glue to the statute books of the WA. Which is why the author of this latest anti-abortion proposal should probably move on to a completely different proposal, rather than focusing on an anti-abortion one. However, judging by the name of the nation that proposed this ("Pro life-2017"), it is likely that they are a one-trick pony, that will not focus on anything else other than an anti-abortion or anti-euthanasia proposal.

[Willania Imperium]

“No draft, no support. Also, probably illegal.”

Drane snickers. "Probably? With respect, more like definitely, on multiple counts. It contradicts a few existing resolutions on abortion and euthanasia, and calls for the Security Council to enforce this, a function that the Security Council cannot perform."

"Never mind. Definetly illegal. And since they refuse to listen to us, I'm just gonna dump a couple liters of scalding hot coffee on them to wake them up. Wanna join in?"

[Phydios]

You have no idea what you are doing. First, you need to get two pro-abortion resolutions repealed.

OOC: Easier said than done. Many have tried, and failed, to get GAR#128 and GAR#286 repealed. The quality of the wording and arguments of those attempted repeals has ranged from mediocre to first class. And yet they all failed to repeal them. There just isn't enough support in the WA for an outright ban on abortion, and it seems unlikely that the broad attitude of the WA will change in the foreseeable future. As a result, GAR#128 and GAR#286 are two Resolutions that are stuck like glue to the statute books of the WA. Which is why the author of this latest anti-abortion proposal should probably move on to a completely different proposal, rather than focusing on an anti-abortion one. However, judging by the name of the nation that proposed this ("Pro life-2017"), it is likely that they are a one-trick pony, that will not focus on anything else other than an anti-abortion or anti-euthanasia proposal.

Agreed. Sad but true.

[Grays Harbor]

There is only so much "Illegal" my translation program can tolerate. You have exceeded that limit.

[The Unfounded]

"And once again, somebody doesn't even read the manual before trying to slap this crap up."

[NeoOasis]

Nah, plants are alive too. You can't win.

Damn, right they are!

Technically you aren't wrong, and if this was to pass, you'd be correct legally as well.

So by counting flora as alive...

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to witness it... is it still a crime?

[North Eastern New England]

Hey, just so everyone knows I'm new here and I like the idea but there are some problems.

1. This is contrary to previous WA resolutions
2. This is not specific enough and doesn't use proper WA language
3. There needs to be exceptions, what if doctors/family have to make the choice between aborting the child, or letting the mother die?
4. This will never pass, too many people and Nations are unwaveringly, and perhaps unreasonably, pro-abortion, though many are also unreasonably anti-abortion, this is a very splitting issue
5. So far I have only mentioned the issues related to abortion, as for the capital punishment issues I don't have a comment, other then the worst criminals, like someone who, commits rape, is a murderer, is a traitor, or is discriminatory against others, deserve to be punished, but I am not going to say how much

This is undoubtedly a first draft, it could become international law, but it needs to leave room for Nations to create their own laws on the issue.

I suggest a law protecting every citizen's right to live their natural lifespan, with exceptions for criminals, and anyone whose life risks the life of another human being, specifically prioritizing the life of a pregnant mother over the life of her unborn child, if that mother is at risk of death or severe disability, that is.

Or I also propose a law that specifically bans abortion in cases where the pregnant individual in question:

1. Knowingly consented to have sex, or whatever act, that resulted in them becoming pregnant,
2. Is not at risk of disability or death as a result of being pregnant,
3. Is not at overly severe risk of disability or death, due to a medical disorder or abnormality, during the process of giving birth, and
4. Was aware that they were consenting to potentially becoming pregnant when consenting to having sex, even if that sex was "safe" sex, "safe" sex by this definition is sex that was accompanied by a protective measure, against pregnancy, such as condom use, or anti-pregnancy pills

Again this is what makes the most sense to me because:

1. A person's life needs to be protected, they can't just be left to die so their baby can have life
2. We can't force someone who has been raped to have to deal with months of mental, and physical, agony just to give birth to the child of the one who raped them
3. If someone wasn't aware they could become pregnant, we can't force them to be

in the case of "safe" sex and sex out of season number 3 is void, because no matter how unlikely
it was, the only way to know for certain is to not have sex,

Personally I lean towards option 2, we need to update WA laws on this subject, some seem... morally questionable. We need laws that address the most questionable times abortion is used, such as when it is being done because the mother, who consented to sex, knowing there was a chance she could become pregnant, wants to have an abortion, because she doesn't want the baby, or so she can go out and do it all again, but still allow it as a possibility, in case it is necessary, to protect the life of the mother. Anything more than that needs to be up to the individual nation. I would also strongly encourage that, whatever the law, it provide funding to educate citizens on how pregnancy happens, that way no one can use the "I didn't know I would become pregnant from sex" claim.

This is a very hot topic, and important to me, if anyone wants to start a forum to come up with an ideal abortion law, that will ultimately be sent to, and hopefully passed by, the GA, please send me a telegram with a link to it at "north eastern New England"

The key thing in coming up with the best abortion law is looking at it with a non-pro or anti-abortion outlook. We need to agree that there are moral problems with abortion, as well as problems with completely banning it, again if you have a forum to come up with an ideal abortion law, that will ultimately be sent to, and hopefully passed by, the GA, please send me a telegram with a link to it. My nation is "north eastern New England"

[Araraukar]

Or I also propose a law that specifically bans abortion in cases where the pregnant individual in question

OOC: Would also be against existing resolutions, plus your list of reasons is really fucked-up. Sex (and what the hell is "or whatever act") is not consent to pregnancy.

Also, please post your own ideas in your own thread, if you want to work on them.

[Pro Life-2017]

I would like to thank EVERYONE who gave me feedback on this proposed resolution. I have learned so much from everyone, even those who do not agree with this proposed resolution. I will be amending this proposed resolution soon, hopefully in the next few days, with everyone's feedback in mind.

[Pro Life-2017]

I have just edited this draft Resolution, check the new version.

[Willania Imperium]

"Well, it seems to me that illegal. It'll require the repeal of Resolution #128: On Abortion, Resolution #285: Assisted Suicide Act, and Resolution #286: Reproductive Freedoms. That would be a lot of repeals. And considering your talent, you might as well drop this."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

1. This resolution hereby protects life from conception to natural death,

OOC: Effectively does nothing

2. This resolution hereby defines life to start from the moment of conception,

OOC: You're not going to get much support on this.

3. This resolution hereby prohibit abortion in all states nations,

OOC: Conflicts with GAR#128 and GAR#256.

4. This resolution prohibit abortion in all cases,

OOC: Conflicts with GAR#128 and GAR#286. Also redundant to clause 3.

5. This resolution also bans euthanasia in all cases,

OOC: Conflicts with GAR#285.

So, once again, this proposal is illegal for multiple conflicts with existing WA resolutions. As stated in the General Assembly Rules for Proposals:

Contradiction: From the verb 'to contradict' - to state opposite or deny a concept or idea. Proposals which conflict with explicit clauses within an active resolution will be removed.